The Human Rights Act 1998 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which actually came into effect in the year 2000. It basically means that all laws of the United Kingdom, before and after the passage of the act, must be interpreted in light of the obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. It has affected how almost every public body in the country is run, and is widely criticised from the political right and narrowly criticised from the political left. It is also one of the vanishingly few things that Tony Blair got right.

As Britain had already signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, the rights found this act already technically applied to the United Kingdom. However, in order to actually seek redress under these rights, a long and expensive legal battle had to be fought through the European Courts. The Human Rights Act allowed British judges to make rulings on Human Rights, with the European Courts only acting as an appellate court.

The Act also officially abolished the death penalty in the United Kingdom, although the death penalty only existed for certain military crimes and hadn't been used in decades.

If it wasn't a crime when someone did it (whatever "it" is), they can't be punished for it. The law cannot be applied retrospectively.
e.g. if it wasn't illegal to possess a psychoactive substance yesterday, you "dispose" of it, and today it does becomes illegal to possess, you cannot be punished for possessing it yesterday.

Also, if someone did commit a criminal act and the punishment is now harsher than when they committed it (e.g. longer prison sentence), their punishment must be in line with the punishment of the time they committed the crime.

All the rights contained within the European Convention are usable by anybody, regardless of their sex, race, colour, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status.

Everybody shall have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possession. They shall not be deprived of their possessions, unless it's in the public interest to do so and this deprivation of possessions is allowed by law.

Everybody has the right to an education. In the provision of educational services, the state must respect the right of parents to ensure the teaching their children receives conforms with their own religious and philosophical beliefs.

The Conservative Party went into the 2010 general election promising to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a "Bill of Rights for Britain." They feel that the Human Rights Act, among other things, prioritises the right of the criminal over the victim, claim that the government's ability to expel disruptive children from schools and deport dangerous criminals is seriously weakened by the act and that it has led to a whole world of expensive, pointless litigation. Naturally, none of this is actually true.

No further action on this taken during the Conservative-LibDem coalition government of 2010-15, but abolishing the act remained a campaign promise of the Conservative Party's manifesto for the 2015 general election. Having won a majority government, the Tories are now expected to follow through with this move in the near future.

Under the Act, judges are permitted to make a declaration of incompatibility, stating that a piece of law is not compatible with the Human Rights Act. However, the Government is under no obligation to actually do anything to rectify the incompatibility or to change its ways at all. This makes a declaration under s4 about as effective as a wet tissue.

On the whole, the Human Rights Act was a ridiculously important milestone in UK law and has probably done more good than bad. It has also produced some amazing cases - Lord Hoffman's dissenting opinion in A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department[4] is one of the greatest pieces of legal writing ever produced by a British judge.